I've Moved!!!

I'm probably one of the few (but growing) number who saw the movie and was then inspired to read the short story. This review will focus on the differences between the movie and the short story, and how this is one of those pieces (like Planet of the Apes and Contact) that is actually improved when translated from story to movie form.

As far as the basic plot-line goes, the two works are the same. Both feature John Anderton, head of Precrime --a futuristic police department that is able to arrest and incarcerate murderers before they strike through the use of genetically mutated telepathic humans. Public acceptance and trust of the Precrime department hinges on believing the idea that the future is fixed, and knowledge of it would not change the present. Otherwise, since no actual crime has been committed, the idea of jailing those who "offend" becomes repugnant. Anderton accepts this premise --until he finds himself accused of committing the murder of a stranger he's never even met and can't conceive of killing. He flees in order to prove his innocence by demonstrating that he won't kill his intended victim --but in both the movie and the short story the issue of free will is skillfully treated but never conclusively resolved.

As a tale written in 1954, the short story sports such inconsistencies as a future where radio is still the main way people get their news and entertainment, and smoking in the office is commonplace. The "high tech" computers used to analyze precognitive visions sport tape drives and punch cards in the original. Meanwhile, interstellar travel is commonplace. As a fan of "classic" sci-fi, I enjoy these kind of anachronisms, but they may be off-putting to most readers. It just goes to show how hard it is write something in the SF genre that will withstand the passage of time.

While the movie uses nice special effects and compellingly updates these minor issues, it also introduces the currently relevant issues of privacy in the high-tech age, and the post-911 issue of how government's interest in security is to be balanced with civil liberties for the individual. I found the high-tech future depicted to be chilling and tantalizing at the same time. The virtual reality, holographic computer displays and ultra-thin computing devices looked oh-so-much-fun! On the other hand, advertising that is able to determine your identity based on retina scan and call you by name sounded very annoying, and the ability of the state to track your location and transactions in minute detail made the future presented sound like a safe, but repressive alternative to our own present.